Tech jobs to be replaced by new tech?

Tech workers take note: A steady stream of advances in data center technology could make your job obsolete over the next decade or so.

At least that was the message this week from technology researcher Gartner during a conference in Las Vegas. Gartner analyst Donna Scott predicted that over the next 20 years, changes in computing technology will erase the need for much of the work that employs information technology staff today.

Among the tasks on the way out are the administration and maintenance of computer hardware, software and networks, as well as help desk work, Scott said. By 2024, companies will employ half the number of people they do today in these areas, she predicted. More than half the staff in the average IT department is tasked with such duties today.

Driving this shift are numerous technology developments leading toward what Scott called "real-time infrastructure." That's Gartner's vision of the less labor-intensive data center of the future, in which more-advanced machines and equipment administer themselves, automatically diagnosing and fixing problems, and allocating computer resources as needed.

On the bright side, Gartner predicts that jobs in IT systems design, development and project management will pick up some of the slack. The researcher advises companies to groom their best workers for these jobs.

"As IT becomes more standardized and automated, identify your agile employees and invest in them, providing new roles and education," Scott's presentation notes said.

In the short term, job prospects are looking brighter for IT workers, according to a recent Merrill Lynch survey. Chief information officers in the United States and Europe plan to increase their IT staff rosters next year, according to the November report. In addition, online ads for tech jobs have increased, and IT services companies have been hiring.

In the long run, though, the cost of running data centers will fall dramatically as fewer workers are needed for their upkeep, Scott noted. But lower labor costs aren't the only reason for the predicted decline in data center costs, she said. Companies will make more efficient use of central computers, requiring fewer and fewer machines for an equivalent amount of data crunching. "Virtualization," technology that enables computers to be pooled more easily into a single resource, will make that possible, she said.

"Companies could require as much as 40 percent less server processing power, which would have dramatic ramifications for the server market and server vendors," Scott's notes said.

Data center budgets could fall by between 13 percent and 37 percent, depending on the type of computers used, with the cost of running Microsoft Windows servers declining the most, Gartner predicted.

Not that surprising

System and network admins are hardly a high tech job, so it is not surprising that there will be less jobs for that level of worker. It is a sad fact of life that workers in decent paying, yet fairly unskilled occupations, see a reduction in employment opportunities. At least there should be other decent paying jobs that require little in the way of formal education, that they can move on to. As the march of progress continues, this will be more and more of a fact of life.

If a person wants to be able to stay in a volatile field like computers, they need a solid educational background. Both theoretical and practical training is required. BS, MS or phd in computer science, computer engineering or even electrical engineering are the keys to that background. Of course that means heavy amounts of knowlege and skill in mathematics, physics along with theoretical computer science/engineering topics. This is why improving our secondary educational system is of paramount importance.

It is like teaching yourself a computer language or taking a few classes in that language. Sure you will be a functional programmer, but you won't have the background for much else in the computer field. And the fine folks who learn how to admin a network or build andmaintain a somewhat complex website, don't get the needed background either. There is a HUGE knowlege gap between learning how to effectively manage an OS in a large network and being able to develop one. Yes, that gap sometimes works both ways, but the person with a degree and specializes in operating systems is going to have the necessary background to survive in this everchanging field.

For all the wonderful benefits that our scientific gains have brought, it has also caused many problems that have forced us to adapt to it nearly as much as we adapt technology to us.

[baggyguy1218]

say that again?

Why go to school for 6 - 8 years so that you can work for 40,000 a year. Its retarded. Stop hiring these idiots that go to a crash course on WIndows, then take a job running a off site IT depatrment for 12 dollars an hour. Even here at my employer, we have kids with B.S in Computer Science and 1 or 2 semesters away from a masters making $12.85 an hour at 35 hours a week! Its the basic reason I got out of it. Im going buisness, at least I will get a job making a salary. Screw you IT directors and your 6 figure salaries! Why dont you go figure out how many rounds of golf you can play before you throw up! Have a nice day...

[Tex Murphy PI]

I didn't know that Gartner was so out of touch.

Wow! These people sound like Microsoft's marketing department! Let's examine their statements and see just how realistic they are:

"Driving this shift are numerous technology developments leading toward what Scott called "real-time infrastructure." "
Infrastructure design and implementation is a time consuming process that not only takes time to deploy, but to manage as well. The success of a computing environment is augmented or limited by its infrastructure design. To expect an underlying computing infrastructure to change in "real time" is to essentially say that a band-aid approach to computing is the norm. This only increases the cost and labor required for the upkeep of an unruly infrastructure.

"advanced machines and equipment administer themselves, automatically diagnosing and fixing problems"
Evidently, the author is clueless. Corporations have multiple CUSTOMIZED apps that their business rely on. Even more for hi-tech manufacturing plants. If no single OS is even close to automatically diagnosing - let alone repairing itself - how are we to expect applications to do the same?

"As IT becomes more standardized and automated, identify your agile employees and invest in them, providing new roles and education,"
This is correct. The IT worker of tomorrow will have to be agile and adaptive to allow them to craft systems that meet emerging business requirements.
However, this is unrealistic, since most companies do not invest in their employees - since they do not view them as assets.

The story is also correct about stating how tools will allow IT managers to do more with less resources (replace administrative headcount with Server Counts instead).

In the short term, the need for IT will still be there, since we are decades away from self-healing systems. However, the market will NOT grow, but remain stagnant as system management tools continue to develop into maturity.

I think the long term prospects (several years from now) for IT workers will be grim - as more companies continue to offshore their work. Those that don't will outsource it. The net effect is the same: lower wages, and lower benefits.

Only the very few that are adaptive and skilled enough to perform datacenter work (infrastructure and advanced server customization and management) or capable of configuring complex ERP applications such as SAP, Peoplesoft, Oracle, etc... will be able to escape this commoditization trend.

Unfortunately, what many people fail to comprehend, is that offshoring is not just isolated to IT. It is now rapidly spreading to tax preparation, accounting, and engineering functions - jobs that require at least a Bachelors or Masters education.

It appears that the article's main thrust is that project management is a way to escape this "black hole." However, it fails to take into account of the problem of "Too many chiefs, and not enough Indians"

You cannot have a workforce comprised of nothing but "Project Managers" - because they inevitably have to manage someone.

[katamari]

Less management, more real work.

This is just another result of the post-dot-com fallout which forced so many managers to say "oh my GOD I don't know what I'm going to do, I can't schmooze my way through my job any more!"

We need *LESS* managerial staff in the tech industry, and *MORE* people who are actually *doing real work*, and not "managing" things. For sake of example, and I don't mean to pick Microsoft because they're Microsoft, but MS has a ratio of 3 employees/workers to 1 manager across the **ENTIRE COMPANY**.

Too many people in the "tech" industry should not be part-of it. There are still too many individuals (mainly management) who remain on the "I'm just trying to make tons of money by looking like I'm doing something while doing nothing" bandwagon.

Stop the nonsense. Less management, more actual workers. We do not need managers for managers for managers of managers for managers of employees. Remove the tiered managerial chain, remove the sub-managerial divisions (i.e. "PROJECT" managers, who *NEVER ACTUALLY MANAGE PROJECTS!*), and start hiring competant people who can actually create tech industry results. That means, able to churn out proper code, visual results, or something that can be sold/marketed to consumers in a friendly way (i.e. not spam or forced product lines).

Until then, I myself will continue to be one of those elite yet bizarre people who wishes to remain a "grunt" worker -- someone who does work to see the results of his efforts, rather than try to make a name for himself, or somehow "become a manager" (and thereby never actually creating/DOING anything).

This isn't even up for discussion, folks. Any engineer in the IT field knows exactly what I speak of. It's a fact at this point. Period.